Class Action Action

Jacob Sullum | February 11, 2005

Although I don't buy the constitutional justification for federal limits on medical malpractice suits, the case for the class action bill the Senate overwhelmingly passed yesterday is a lot stronger. (Walter Olson has a handy collection of links on the subject at Overlawyered.com.) Class actions of national scope, involving defendants and plaintiffs from various states, ought to be heard in federal courts (which have jurisdiction over "Controversies...between Citizens of different States," a phrase that has been given an unreasonably narrow reading), instead of whatever county court is most receptive to claims against big corporations. And judges should be less inclined to rubber-stamp settlements that provide significant benefits to no one but the lawyers. In short, this looks like good legislation that respects the Constitution. Yet the broad, bipartisan support it has attracted in Congress makes me suspect there must be something wrong with it.

Comments

sage|2.11.05 @ 10:22AM|#

Mr. Sullum,

Thanks for pointing this out.

"...the broad, bipartisan support it has attracted in Congress makes me suspect there must be something wrong with it."

This is just like other things you have written about, where some law that should be enforced by the states is instead prosecuted in federal court. I think now that they will be handling class actions, there's going to be a lot more of them.

|2.11.05 @ 10:28AM|#

Having a little cynicism for breakfast?

...of course you're likely right

|2.11.05 @ 11:46AM|#

Perfectly understandable. Even the lawyers in Congress don't like lawyers!

|2.11.05 @ 11:53AM|#

I haven't read the text of the bill yet, but if this truly "prohibits" state courts from hearing multi-state class actions, then this is nearly as much an ass-rape of defendants as it is of plaintiffs. There are plenty of situations in which, as a defendant, you'd prefer to be in a particular state court. (And this isn't even addressing the federalism violations attendant with such a provision.)

|2.11.05 @ 12:15PM|#

SR,

True, but it is the plaintiffs who choose where the case will be heard, by filing their claim their. The defendants have no say in the matter.

|2.11.05 @ 12:16PM|#

...filing their claim there...

|2.11.05 @ 12:26PM|#

More to the point, it means that defendents will have to face fifty class actions, one in the most hellholish county of each state.
--G

|2.11.05 @ 12:48PM|#

Here's my suspicion: It leads of course to federal courts being even more behind on the their dockets. Bush announces that to correct this situation it is necessary for Congress to create more federal judgeships. Naturally he will be the one who appoints the new judges, and thus his hold on the federal judiciary is strengthened.

(You might ask why some Democrats went along with this? I suppose it's because they're largely from red or purple states, and they don't want to be labeled by their GOP opponents as "tools of the trial lawyers" in the next election--trial lawyers seem to have replaced welfare mothers in Republican demonology. Personally, I am not sure that this demonization of trial lawyers is actually in the best interests of small-government advocates. After all, if people can't resolve their grievances with businesses through litigation, they may be more inclined to push for Congressional-bureaucratic regulation instead.)

|2.11.05 @ 1:24PM|#

There would be a lot more support for "tort reform," broadly defined, if its aims and reforms were as reasonable as this. This is about the appropriate distinction between federal and state courts, a procedural, good government issue that reasonable people working in good faith can support, rather than a transparent attempt to tip the balance of power to a favored constituency.

|2.11.05 @ 1:42PM|#

"This is about the appropriate distinction between federal and state courts, a procedural, good government issue that reasonable people working in good faith can support, rather than a transparent attempt to tip the balance of power to a favored constituency."

Acknowledging, of course, that to leave something alone is to support the balance of power in favor of another constituency.

|2.11.05 @ 1:54PM|#

crimethink, not every court on the planet has personal jurisdiction and/or venue over every defendant. Even nationwide class action plaintiffs are sometimes stuck filing suit in a defendant's home state, which a defendant may very well have chosen for its favorable legal environment. Courtesy of state-level tort reform, Colorado corporations would much rather see plaintiffs obliged to sue in Colorado state courts than the U.S. District Court for Colorado for most causes of action.

|2.11.05 @ 7:54PM|#

"Acknowledging, of course, that to leave something alone is to support the balance of power in favor of another constituency."

Hear hear Jason Ligon.

We ought to talk about zoning and smart growth sometime. ;-)